www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Dating of the Nativity

Dear brother Wm. Ghazar,

Yes, thank you for your clarification. It is a great asset of this Forum that its Eastern Christians are not all Byzantine.

So it (January 6th) was as I had been told, a composite feast commemorating the Incarnation, Nativity, Circumcision, Visit of the Magi, and Presentation in the Temple on the 40th day, and his Baptism in the Jordan as an adult.

It will be a jump for some to accept the Armenian tradition as the older (not necessarily more worthy) and thus more "original" tradition.

Really, it would be impossible to even imagine that the Armenians had "orginally" celebrated the Nativity on the 25th of December and then at some later date moved it to the 6th of January. [Part of my point in asking my previous question is that they would also have had to have moved the Incarnation, Circumcision, and Presentation in the Temple back to the 6th of January at some later date.] And of course there is absolutely no evidence that this ever occurred.

So, in my estimation, there can be no doubt that the earliest Christian tradition was of celebrating the Nativity on the 6th of January.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Friends,

The following article in the Catholic Encyclopedia shows that the dating of the 25th of December for our Lord's Nativity spread from Rome to the East in the late fourth century. It consistently refers to the adoption of December 25th in the East as a new observance, over and against the older date of Jan. 6th. It demonstrates that the older custom was that of a "joint celebration" of the Nativity and Epiphany on Jan. 6th in Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Constantinople (as is practiced to this day in Armenia). This joint celebration was finally seperated by these other Churches. All of this supports the original post I placed on this thread.

This following article breaks down, Church by Church, when the newer date of December 25th was adopted. The quote by St. John Chrysostom, provided by Dr. Eric from this article, does not say what he impies it does (see the article in upcoming post) at the very most it is the saints attempt to persuade his Church in Antioch to be united in adopting the newer practice of December 25th (which some in his Church had been celebrating for only TEN YEARS, IN 386). The section below on Antioch provides the rest of the quote which Dr. Eric did not include, showing that it is not at all a convincing argument for the 25th being an older observance:

Incidently, the Armenian Church's calendar has always had the closest ties with that of Jerusalem. Thus the late resistance of Jerusalem to the newer December 25th dating of the Nativity (mentioned below) certainly had a lot to due with our Church's reluctance to adopt it. Also the mention of the St. Lucan passage (3:23) is one which is quoted in our Church as well, in favor of the joint celebration. Finally, the mention of the practical problems of being in both holy sites simultaneously for the joint celebration of the Birth and Baptism is commonly believed to be one of the more compelling reasons the Eastern Churches accepted the seperation of these observancess by adopting the Roman dating.

{} = my additions All caps = my emphasis

ALEXANDRIA.
The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, xxi in P.G., VIII, 888) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De pasch� computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January). At any rate this DOUBLE COMMEMORATION {birth and baptism} became popular, PARTLY BECAUSE THE APPARITION TO THE SHEPHERDS WAS CONSIDERED AS ON MANIFESTATION OF CHRIST'S GLORY, AND WAS ADDED TO THE GREATER MANIFESTATIONS CELEBRATED ON 6 JANUARY; partly because at the baptism-manifestation many codices (e.g. Codex Bez�) wrongly give the Divine words as sou ei ho houios mou ho agapetos, ego semeron gegenneka se (Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten thee) in lieu of en soi eudokesa (in thee I am well pleased), read in Luke 3:22. Abraham Ecchelensis (Labbe, II, 402) quotes the Constitutions of the Alexandrian Church for a dies Nativitatis et Epiphani� in Nic�an times; Epiphanius (H�r., li, ed. Dindorf, 1860, II, 483) quotes an extraordinary semi-Gnostic ceremony at Alexandria in which, on the night of 5-6 January, a cross-stamped Kor� was carried in procession round a crypt, to the chant, "Today at this hour Kor� gave birth to the Eternal"; John Cassian records in his "Collations" (X, 2 in P.L., XLIX, 820), written 418-427, that the Egyptian monasteries still observe the "ANCIENT CUSTOM"; but on 29 Choiak (25 December) and 1 January, 433, Paul of Emesa preached before Cyril of Alexandria, and his sermons (see Mansi, IV, 293; appendix to Act. Conc. Eph.) show that the December celebration was then firmly established there, and calendars prove its permanence. THE DECEMBER FEAST THEREFORE REACHED EGYPT BETWEEN 427 and 433.

CYPRUS, MESOPOTAMIA, ARMENIA, ASIA MINOR.
In Cyprus, at the end of the fourth century, Epiphanius asserts against the Alogi (H�r., li, 16, 24 in P. G., XLI, 919, 931) THAT CHRIST WAS BORN ON 6 JANUARY AND BAPTIZED ON 8 NOVEMBER. EPHRAEM SYRUS (whose hymns belong to Epiphany, not to Christmas) proves that Mesopotamia STILL put the birth feast thirteen days after the winter solstice; i.e. 6 January; Armenia likewise ignored, and still ignores, the December festival. (Cf. Euthymius, "Pan. Dogm.", 23 in P.G., CXXX, 1175; Niceph., "Hist. Eccl,", XVIII, 53 in P.G., CXLVII, 440; Isaac, Catholicos of Armenia in eleventh or twelfth century, "Adv. Armenos", I, xii, 5 in P.G., CXXII, 1193; Neale, "Holy Eastern Church", Introd., p. 796). In Cappadocia, Gregory of Nyssa's sermons on St. Basil (who died before 1 January, 379) and the two following, preached on St. Stephen's feast (P.G., XLVI, 788; cf, 701, 721), prove that in 380 the 25th December was already celebrated there, unless, following Usener's too ingenious arguments (Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Bonn, 1889, 247-250), one were to place those sermons in 383. Also, Asterius of Amaseia (fifth century) and Amphilochius of Iconium (contemporary of Basil and Gregory) show that in their dioceses both the feasts of Epiphany and Nativity were separate (P.G., XL, 337 XXXIX, 36).

JERUSALEM.
In 385, Silvia of Bordeaux (or Etheria, as it seems clear she should be called) was profoundly impressed by the splendid Chilhood feasts at Jerusalem. They had a definitely "Nativity" colouring; the bishop proceeded nightly to Bethlehem, returning to Jerusalem for the day celebrations. The Presentation was celebrated forty days after. BUT THIS CALCULATION STARTS FROM 6 JANUARY, and the feast lasted during the octave of that date. (Peregr. Sylv., ed. Geyer, pp. 75 sq.) Again (p. 101) she mentions as high festivals Easter and Epiphany alone. IN 385, THEREFORE, 25 DECEMBER WAS NOT OBSERVED AT JERUSALEM. This checks the so-called correspondence between Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) and Pope Julius I (337-352), quoted by John of Nikiu (c. 900) to convert Armenia to 25 December (see P.L., VIII, 964 sqq.). Cyril declares that his clergy cannot, ON THE SINGLE FEAST OF BIRTH AND BAPTISM, MAKE A DOUBLE PROCESSION to Bethlehem and Jordan. (This later practice is here an anachronism.) He asks Julius to assign the true date of the nativity "from census documents brought by Titus to Rome"; Julius assigns 25 December. Another document (Cotelier, Patr. Apost., I, 316, ed. 1724) makes Julius write thus to Juvenal of Jerusalem (c. 425-458), adding that Gregory Nazianzen at Constantinople was being criticized for "HALVING" the festival {OF BIRTH AND BAPTISM}. But Julius died in 352, and by 385 Cyril had made no change; indeed, JEROME, writing about 411 (in Ezech., P.L., XXV, 18), REPROVES PALESTINE FOR KEEPING CHRIST'S BIRTHDAY (when He hid Himself) ON THE MANIFESTATION FEAST. ***Cosmas Indicopleustes suggests (P.G., LXXXVIII, 197) THAT EVEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIXTH CENTURY JERUSALEM WAS PECULIAR IN COMBINING THE TWO COMMEMORATIONS, ARGUING FROM LUKE 3:23 THAT CHRIST'S BAPTISM DAY WAS THE ANNIVERSARY OF HIS BIRTHDAY. The commemoration, however, of David and James the Apostle on 25 December at Jerusalem accounts for the deferred feast. Usener, arguing from the "Laudatio S. Stephani" of Basil of Seleucia (c. 430. -- P.G., LXXXV, 469), thinks that Juvenal tried at least to introduce this feast, but that Cyril's greater name attracted that event to his own period.

ANTIOCH.
In Antioch, on the feast of St. Philogonius, Chrysostom preached an important sermon. The year was almost certainly 386, though Clinton gives 387, and Usener, by a long rearrangement of the saint's sermons, 388 (Religionsgeschichtl. Untersuch., pp. 227-240). But between February, 386, when Flavian ordained Chrysostom priest, and December is ample time for the preaching of all the sermons under discussion. (See Kellner, Heortologie, Freiburg, 1906, p. 97, n. 3). In view of a reaction to certain Jewish rites and feasts, CHRYSOSTOM TRIES TO UNITE ANTIOCH IN CELEBRATING CHRIST'S BIRTH ON 25 DECEMBER, PART OF THE COMMUNITY HAVING ALREADY KEPT IT ON THAT DAY FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS. IN THE WEST, he says, the feast was thus kept, anothen; its introduction into Antioch he had always sought, CONSERVATIVES ALWAYS RESISTED. This time he was successful; IN A CROWDED CHURCH HE DEFENDED THE NEW CUSTOM. It was no novelty {HE ARGUED}; from Thrace to Cadiz this feast was observed -- rightly, SINCE ITS MIRACULOUSLY RAPID DIFFUSTION proved its genuineness. Besides, Zachary, who, as high-priest, entered the Temple on the Day of Atonement, received therefore announcement of John's conception in September; six months later Christ was conceived, i.e. in March, and born accordingly in December.

Finally, though never at Rome, on authority he knows that the census papers of the Holy Family are still there. [This appeal to Roman archives is as old as Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 34, 35) and Tertullian (Adv. Marc., IV, 7, 19). Julius, in the Cyriline forgeries, is said to have calculated the date from Josephus, ON THE SAME UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ZACHARY AS DID CHRYSOSTOM.] Rome, therefore, has observed 25 December long enough to allow of Chrysostom speaking at least in 388 as above (P.G., XLVIII, 752, XLIX, 351).

CONSTANTINOPLE.
In 379 or 380 Gregory Nazianzen made himself exarchos of the NEW FEAST {of December 25th}, i.e. its initiator, in Constantinople, where, since the death of Valens, orthodoxy was reviving. His three Homilies (see Hom. xxxviii in P.G., XXXVI) were preached on successive days (Usener, op. cit., p. 253) in the private chapel called Anastasia. On his exile in 381, the feast disappeared.

According, however, to John of Nikiu, Honorius, when he was present on a visit, arranged with Arcadius for the observation of the feast ON THE ROMAN DATE {Dec. 25th}. Kellner puts this visit in 395; Baumstark (Oriens Chr., 1902, 441-446), between 398 and 402. The latter relies on a letter of Jacob of Edessa quoted by George of Beelt�n, asserting that Christmas was brought to Constantinople by Arcadius and Chrysostom from Italy, where, "according to the histories", it had been kept from Apostolic times. Chrysostom's episcopate lasted from 398 to 402; the feast would therefore have been introduced between these dates by Chrysostom bishop, as at Antioch by Chrysostom priest. But L�beck (Hist. Jahrbuch., XXVIII, I, 1907, pp. 109-118) proves Baumstark's evidence invalid. More important, but scarcely better accredited, is Erbes' contention (Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch., XXVI, 1905, 20-31) that the feast was brought in by Constantine as early as 330-35.

ROME.
At Rome the earliest evidence is in the Philocalian Calendar (P. L., XIII, 675; it can be seen as a whole in J. Strzygowski, Kalenderbilder des Chron. von Jahre 354, Berlin, 1888), compiled in 354, which contains three important entries. In the civil calendar 25 December is marked "Natalis Invicti". In the "Depositio Martyrum" a list of Roman or early and universally venerated martyrs, under 25 December is found "VIII kal. ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iude�". On "VIII kal. mart." (22 February) is also mentioned St. Peter's Chair. In the list of consuls are four anomalous ecclesiastical entries: the birth and death days of Christ, the entry into Rome, and martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul. The significant entry is "Chr. C�sare et Paulo sat. XIII. hoc. cons. Dns. ihs. XPC natus est VIII Kal. ian. d. ven. luna XV," i.e. during the consulship of (Augustus) C�sar and Paulus Our Lord Jesus Christ was born on the eighth before the calends of January (25 December), a Friday, the fourteenth day of the moon. The details clash with tradition and possibility. The epact, here XIII, is normally XI; the year is A.U.C. 754, a date first suggested two centuries later; in no year between 751 and 754 could 25 December fall on a Friday; tradition is constant in placing Christ's birth on Wednesday. Moreover the date given for Christ's death (duobus Geminis coss., i.e. A.D. 29) leaves Him only twenty eight, and one-quarter years of life. Apart from this, these entries in a consul list are manifest interpolations. But are not the two entries in the "Depositio Martyrum" also such? Were the day of Christ's birth in the flesh alone there found, it might stand as heading the year of martyrs' spiritual natales; but 22 February is there wholly out of place. Here, as in the consular fasti, popular feasts were later inserted for convenience' sake. The civil calendar alone was not added to, as it was useless after the abandonment of pagan festivals. So, even if the "Depositio Martyrum" dates, as is probable, from 336, it is not clear that the calendar contains evidence earlier than Philocalus himself, i.e. 354, unless indeed pre-existing popular celebration must be assumed to render possible this official recognition. Were the Chalki manuscript of Hippolytus genuine, evidence for the December feast would exist as early as c. 205. The relevant passage [which exists in the Chigi manuscript Without the bracketed words and is always so quoted before George Syncellus (c. 1000)] runs:

He gar prote parousia tou kyriou hemon he ensarkos [en he gegennetai] en Bethleem, egeneto [pro okto kalandon ianouarion hemera tetradi] Basileuontos Augoustou [tessarakoston kai deuteron etos, apo de Adam] pentakischiliosto kai pentakosiosto etei epathen de triakosto trito [pro okto kalandon aprilion, hemera paraskeun, oktokaidekato etei Tiberiou Kaisaros, hypateuontos Hrouphou kai Hroubellionos. -- (Comm. In Dan., iv, 23; Brotke; 19)

"For the first coming of Our Lord in the flesh [in which He has been begotten], in Bethlehem, took place [25 December, the fourth day] in the reign of Augustus [the forty-second year, and] in the year 5500 [from Adam]. And He suffered in His thirty-third year [25 March, the parasceve, in the eighteenth year of Tiberius C�sar, during the consulate of Rufus and Rubellio]."

INTERPOLATION IS CERTAIN {in the above quotation}, and admitted by Funk, Bonwetsch, etc. The names of the consuls [which should be Fufius and Rubellius] are wrong; Christ lives thirty-three years; in the genuine Hippolytus, thirty-one; minute data are irrelevant in this discussion with Severian millenniarists; it is incredible that Hippolytus should have known these details when his contemporaries (Clement, Tertullian, etc.) are, when dealing with the matter, ignorant or silent; or should, having published them, have remained unquoted (Kellner, op. cit., p. 104, has an excursus on this passage.)

St. Ambrose (de virg., iii, 1 in P. L., XVI, 219) preserves the sermon preached by Pope Liberius I at St. Peter's, when, on Natalis Christi, Ambrose' sister, Marcellina, took the veil. This pope reigned from May, 352 until 366, except during his years of exile, 355-357. If Marcellina became a nun only after the canonical age of twenty-five, and if Ambrose was born only in 340, it is perhaps likelier that the event occurred after 357. Though the sermon abounds in references appropriate to the Epiphany (the marriage at Cana, the multiplication of loaves, etc.), these seem due (Kellner, op. cit., p. 109) to sequence of thought, and do not fix the sermon to 6 January, a feast unknown in Rome till much later. Usener, indeed, argues (p. 272) that Liberius preached it on that day in 353, instituting the Nativity feast in the December of the same year; but Philocalus warrants our supposing that if preceded his pontificate by some time, though Duchesne's relegation of it to 243 (Bull. crit., 1890, 3, pp. 41 sqq. ) may not commend itself to many. In the West the Council of Saragossa (380) still ignores 25 December (see can. xxi, 2). Pope Siricius, writing in 385 (P. L., XII, 1134) to Himerius in Spain, distinguishes the feasts of the Nativity and Apparition; but whether he refers to Roman or to Spanish use is not clear. Ammianus Marcellinus (XXI, ii) and Zonaras (Ann., XIII, 11) date a visit of Julian the Apostate to a church at Vienne in Gaul on Epiphany and Nativity respectively. Unless there were two visits, Vienne in A.D. 361 combined the feasts, though on what day is still doubtful. By the time of Jerome and Augustine, the December feast is established, though the latter (Epp., II, liv, 12, in P.L., XXXIII, 200) omits it from a list of first-class festivals. From the fourth century every Western calendar assigns it to 25 December. At Rome, then, the Nativity was celebrated on 25 December before 354; in the East, at Constantinople, not before 379, unless with Erbes, and against Gregory, we recognize it there in 330. Hence, almost universally has it been concluded that the new date reached the East from Rome by way of the Bosphorus during the great anti-Arian revival, and by means of the orthodox champions. De Santi (L'Orig. delle Fest. Nat., in Civilt� Cattolica, 1907), following \

Erbes, argues that Rome took over the Eastern Epiphany, now with a definite Nativity colouring, and, with as increasing number of Eastern Churches, placed it on 25 December; later, both East and West divided their feast, leaving Ephiphany on 6 January, and Nativity on 25 December, respectively, and placing Christmas on 25 December and Epiphany on 6 January. The earlier hypothesis still seems preferable.

AND ON ZACHARY'S PRIESTLY SERVICE ARGUMENT:
Arguments based on Zachary's temple ministry are unreliable, though the calculations of antiquity (see above) have been revived in yet more complicated form, e.g. by Friedlieb (Leben J. Christi des Erl�sers, M�nster, 1887, p. 312). The twenty-four classes of Jewish priests, it is urged, served each a week in the Temple; Zachary was in the eighth class, Abia. The Temple was destroyed 9 Ab, A.D. 70; late rabbinical tradition says that class 1, Jojarib, was then serving. From these untrustworthy data, assuming that Christ was born A.U.C. 749, and that never in seventy turbulent years the weekly succession failed, it is calculated that the eighth class was serving 2-9 October, A.U.C. 748, whence Christ's conception falls in March, and birth presumably in December. Kellner (op. cit., pp. 106, 107) shows how hopeless is the calculation of Zachary's week from any point before or after it.

PROOF FOR DATING OF THE NATIVITY TO COMBAT PAGAN SOLAR FESTIVIES:
Natalis Invicti. The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont's epoch-making "Textes et Monuments" etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 12, p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian in 274. Filippo del Torre in 1700 first saw its importance; it is marked, as has been said, without addition in Philocalus' Calendar. It would be impossible here even to outline the history of solar symbolism and language as applied to God, the Messiah, and Christ in Jewish or Chrisian canonical, patristic, or devotional works. Hymns and Christmas offices abound in instances; the texts are well arranged by Cumont (op. cit., addit. Note C, p. 355).

The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cypr., "De pasch. Comp.", xix, "O quam pr�clare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus." - "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born." - In the fourth century, Chrysostom, "del Solst. Et �quin." (II, p. 118, ed. 1588), says: "Sed et dominus noster nascitur mense decembris . . . VIII Kal. Ian. . . . Sed et Invicti Natalem appelant. Quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster? . . . Vel quod dicant Solis esse natalem, ipse est Sol iustiti�." - "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eight before the calends of January [25 December] . . ., But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice." Already Tertullian (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc) had to assert that Sol was not the Christians' God; Augustine (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P. L., XXXV, 1652) denounces the heretical indentification of Christ with Sol. Pope Leo I (Serm. xxxvii in nat. dom., VII, 4; xxii, II, 6 in P. L., LIV, 218 and 198) bitterly reproves solar survivals -- Christians, on the very doorstep of the Apostles' basilica, turn to adore the rising sun. Sun-worship has bequeathed features to modern popular worship in Armenia, where Chistians had once temporarily and externally conformed to the cult of the material sun (Cumont, op. cit., p. 356).

But even should a deliberate and legitimate "baptism" of a pagan feast be seen here no more than the transference of the date need be supposed. The "mountain-birth" of Mithra and Christ's in the "grotto" have nothing in common: Mithra's adoring shepherds (Cumont, op. cit., I, ii, 4, p. 304 sqq.) are rather borrowed from Christian sources than vice versa.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

Orthodox Evangelization Mission
www.geocities.com/derghazar/OEM [geocities.com]

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your words on this. No one should misconstrue by my writing on this that I am arguing that only the Armenians have the "true practice" in regards to the Nativity celebration (something that should be envied by all Christians). Although some Armenian writers may take this tone, I do not. Rather I am just presenting an intersting historical note from antiquity, and trying to explain why Armenians are peculiar on this. I actually see wisdom in the Western Churches' decision to seperate the feasts. Besides being practical for the pilgrims in the Holy Land, it gives more time to reflect on the Nativity alone, which is a good thing. On the other hand, its nice to experience it in its more ancient form. Every ancient Church has certain bits of Christian antiquity they have preserved more than the others. This is the Armenian Church's one thing. The next post I'm sending is an article by my pastor on this topci. It is interesting to read St. John Chrysostoms' actual quote that has often to be referred to in this thead.

your brother in Christ,
Wm. Ghazar

I have no problem with a January 6 or 7 date for the nativity. It's still in the winter time. Still at the same time when it would show that Zachariah was offering up the Yom Kippur sacrifice. The annunciation could still have been in late march early april. St. John the Baptist still born in late June. The time frame still fits. Who is to say that the "gestation" of Our Lord had to be 9 calendar months. Usual sinful women are pregnant on average for 40 weeks. The Theotokos was sinless.

Another problem is that 25 December on the Julian calendar is 6 or 7 January on the Gregorian.

Dear Dr. Eric,

I don't think that it was ever the intention of the Church to establish the liturgical calendar primarily on historical authenticity. After all, what we strive to achieve in worship transcends time and space.

Surely, based upon the four gospels, one cannot even ascertain if the Lord's ministry was one year or two and a half. The answer is that counting the months of the Lord's ministry is simply not important to our faith.

As to the Theotokos being called "sinless" (anamartitos), it is an issue of dogmatics. I ask you to find any original liturgical, patristic, or scriptural text that uses this term in reference to her.

The Eastern view starts with the non-negotiable recognition that she inherits the consequences of ancestral sin, which is mortality. Thus "the Dormition." Had she been sinless she would not have died. (Christ was incarnate and born with the goal of the Father that he should die. In reverse - had he not died, had he refused the cup, that would have been imputed as sin.)

Certain Eastern greats, such as John Chrysostom, attributed to the Theotokos "venial" sins, but certainly no "mortal" or "grave" ones. But this is just an opinion and open for debate.

The date of Nativity was never and is not a critical issue of faith. Even the Pascha has two different Eastern Christian celebrations. The Easterners in communion with the West and including the Finnish Orthodox Church, which is not in communion with the West, celebrate according to the Western reckoning. The others, according to the Eastern reckoning (as the West but always after the Passover). It is not an issue of faith, but of practice & discipline.

I'm not saying that these issues of liturgical discipline and calendars are meaningless, but perhaps, at least in some of the Eastern Churches, have taken up too much significance at the expense of dogmatic and evangelical matters.

May you and yours enjoy a blessed Theophany/Epiphany celebration!

In Christ,
Andrew

Being a Catholic I will posit that the Blessed Virgin was sinless. We don't need to re-open an old thread about that, you and I disagree on this issue.

No one really objected to the 25 December/6 or 7 January date until the Protestant Revolt of the 16th and 17th centuries. Then they decided that the Church was corrupted with paganism when Constantine allowed us freedom of religion. So the church took on pagan festvals, that's like saying the Jews started to act like Nazis in the 1950s. I would say that the pagans, like Aurelian tried to co-opt our feasts to defuse the explosion that was about to come. Like now with all the Da Vinci Code @#$$#@%, the channeling of angels, "Christ Consciousness", etc, etc, etc... The pagans always try to take our doctrines and worship and pervert them to their advantage. Even the devil can appear as an angel of light.

Yes, but the Church has never been afraid to transfer the celebration of a feast to over power the celebrations of the heathen with the Gospel of truth. The following article refers to many writers who acknowledged that the feast was moved to this date to over-ride the pagan feast. I agree with Dr. Eric's point that we are only talking about a difference of two weeks here (if you put stock in the speculative dating of Zachary's offering). But I also agree with Andrew's good point that historical dating is not the point of our feasts (although I'm still scratching my head about his refusal to acknowledge the Holy God-Bearer had to be prepared as a sinless, spotless Temple to house the Logos of God).

Any way here is my pastor's article. Warning: be preparred for some vintage unabashed "Miaphysitism" here. No Chalcedonian Christian with a weak stomach or thin skin should read further. :p

Christmas in the Armenian Christian Tradition

By Father Garabed Kochakian

Christmas Day, December 25th is one of the latest of the commemorative feasts of the Church. It only began to be observed towards the end of the fourth century. Saint John Chrysostom has left us a homily preached in Antioch in which we learn about how the date was fixed. He says:

"It is not yet ten years old� since this day became manifest and know to us, this day is everywhere a matter for discussion; for some accuse it of being a new feast and new-fangled, and of having been introduced but now; while others contend that it is old and original, because the prophets long ago foretold about his birth; and they argue that long ago it was revealed and held in repute by the inhabitants of regions extending from Gades to Thrace."

We know, therefore, that Christmas or the feast of the birth of Christ according to the flesh was observed in Antioch, the oldest Christian center outside Jerusalem, not earlier that AD 376. Also, Chrysostom implies that it was celebrated in the western half of the world bordering the Mediterranean before the feast known as Christmas gained a foothold in the East.

The Armenian writer Paul of Taron (11th c.) records that it was first observed in Constantinople by AD 373. Also, Egyptian Church history tells us that it was rejected there because it was a unique solitary feast of both the Lord�s baptism and nativity. Similarly, in Armenia to this day the two feasts of the baptism and the fleshly birth of God are kept together on the day of Theophany also know as Epiphany on January 6th.

In Rome, the date at which the festival of December 25th was instituted is difficult to ascertain. There is a tradition in the Roman Church about St. Ambrose of Milan (3rd c.) who, in a correspondence with his sister Marcella, reminds her of the day when she entered the convent as a nun saying, ��on what day could you have better taken your vow.�

The western observance according to Roman sources record that the feast of Christmas coincided in date with an earlier pagan festival. In lands under Roman rule, where the Church had primary authority, by the end of the fourth century the �new� Christmas coincided with the aforementioned pagan feast of Saturnalia held on December 17-24th, when slaves were considered as equal to their masters and ended on December 25th called Brumalia, the feast of the shortest day of the year and the new sun, the last of the old.

Christian writers of the fifth century make it clear by their protests against the pagan merriment associated with the last week of the old year, i.e. December 25-31st. And, the feast of the fleshly birth of God had been put on December 25th in order to hallow, in the Christian way, a day when the Sun of Righteousness Jesus Christ replaced the day of the �new sun� Brumalia. The bishops in Rome, always more ready than others to assimilate pagan practices and popular beliefs, may have deemed it either good policy or even necessary to take over one which they could not hope to eliminate.

Christians in the East, including the Armenians, rejected this new innovation, and accused their co-religionists of idolatry and sun worship, even though it was a well-known tradition to position oneself in prayer toward the rising of the sun in the east. Persian Christians in or around AD 275 dared to identify Jesus Christ with the sun in heaven.

Because St. John Chrysostom and Cassian speak of the new feast as that of the birth of God-Man after or according to the flesh, there often arose questions about an older feast dedicated purely to the birth of Jesus according to the spirit. This was none other than the feast of His Baptism, known to us today as the feast of Epiphany.

The Church in Jerusalem was too conservative to adopt a new date, and through some writings that date from 549 AD, the older date was still preserved as January 6th and celebrated on the banks of the Jordan River, where St. John baptized Jesus. The original significance of the feast as presented by other eastern fathers of the Church call it the day of Holy Theophany, the day when God�s Light shined forth. The reason that the fourth century tradition of celebrating our Lord�s Baptism as the shining forth of God was never lost in the east was that by His spiritual birth as God at the time of His baptism, His true Divinity was revealed. God was born and revealed to men on that day, not only in spirit but also in the flesh of the Divine Logos, Jesus the Christ.

In remote Armenia, the Epiphany was always kept as the double birthday. The Catholicos John Mandakuni, as late as the eighth century, bears witness in AD 720 to this very fact and that Armenian Christians never separated the feasts as one according to the flesh and the other as according to the spirit. As in the nature of Christ our God, being one united from two, so too was the day of the Revelation of God--one in essence of the flesh and of the spirit. Thus the renovation of Christmas and Epiphany as two distinct celebrations in the Church was never accomplished in Armenia.

Anania of Shirak, who lived in the seventh century and about the same time the changes regarding the celebration of Christmas were taking place throughout the then known Christian world, leaves a beautiful discourse about the Armenian tradition and practice. It is known as The Counter upon the Epiphany of our Lord and Savior. The following excerpt is of notable interest:

"Here let us take a firm stand, and one not to be overthrown. And heaven forbid we should divide it into two. But on one day let us keep the birth and the baptism, and maintaining intact the appointments of both, let us follow the holy apostles and blessed Fathers of Nicaea and our own teachers. For it is not true that [the new Christmas] did not reach them, and that therefore they did not receive it; but a long time ago [this feast] came to our land, and was accepted as by men who were ignorant of the truth. And it lasted many, many years, until the blessed John Catholicos, who by family was a Mandakuni. And then he made a search for the truth, and after inquiry and getting at the truth, he commanded it [December 25th] to be abandoned...

"And, after him we too will follow and give this answer to the Greeks, that we are pupils of the Holy Fathers of Nicaea; and what we learned we keep firmly and will not twist it awry. As for you, if you do not walk in the paths of your own Fathers, it appears to me that the temper of the Jews has taken possession of you, as they taught the Samaritans. And the Samaritans kept what they learned. And, you resemble them...

"And if it pleases you, I will utter Job�s words: If I should go wrong, make me intelligent. But if they scorn the words of truth, at least let us not turn perversely from the path of the Fathers."